LETTERS

Reprinted from "Crown Jewels of the Wire", August 1998, page 3

Ref. 150 Years of Hemingrays, 1848 - 1998 Bob Stahr, Advertising Through the Ages Editor Crown Jewels of the Wire, June 1998

Dear Carol: 

First, I want to express my appreciation to Bob Stahr for his efforts in preparing the referenced article. I find it exceptionally well written and factual. Because of our shared interest in Hemingray history, I know and understand the time and effort Bob expended in preparing this excellent article. However, it should come as no surprise that there are occasions when historians disagree on the interpretation of meager data regarding past events. In that context, I take exception to Bob's conclusion that the Covington Works were reopened following the 18 June 1892 fire at the Muncie, Indiana plant. It is my intention that the following not be considered a disparagement to Bob's effort but rather to give another viewpoint to the information at hand.

I have spent approximately 15 years conducting Hemingray research as thoroughly as possible under the circumstances; i.e., hobby research time secondary to a real life. My interest has always been the pre-Muncie years of the operation and the various family members involved therewith. In the early years of my research (late 1970's), I encountered a number of individuals who questioned whether or not the Covington Works were reopened as a result of the Muncie fire. Discussions at the time led me to maintain an open eye throughout my research efforts for documentation of events following the fire. It should be noted that almost all of my Muncie information comes as a result of my assistance to David Dale, Muncie, Indiana, in his historical Midwest glass manufacturing research endeavors. 

It is my conclusion, based on the total absence of any documentary evidence to contrary, that the Covington Works were not reopened immediately following the 18 June 1892 Muncie fire. Furthermore, all of the circumstantial evidence that I have uncovered points to reconstruction in Muncie with no thought of reopening the Covington Works. An article in the Daily Herald has confused a number of people over time because they found what they wanted and did not complete the necessary research. The article states: "The HERALD is informed that Messrs. Hemingray have decided on not rebuilding, and will return to Covington within a few weeks."(1)  A retraction, which hardly anyone ever finds, was printed two days later: "The HERALD was misinformed Saturday in regard to the Messrs. Hemingray not going to rebuild their glass factory. They have already commenced clearing the debris away for a new building, and before the next fire everything will be in readiness for the men to go to work."(2)

Interpretation of this question must begin with an analysis of events which occurred in Covington prior to the removal to Muncie. One must recognize the considerable animosity that existed between the Covington City Council and the Hemingray family. In fact the Hemingrays were actively considering removal to one of several other sites before they became involved in negotiations with the Manufacturers Guarantee Fund Association of Muncie.(3)

The cause of this animosity was at least twofold. Riverfront Covington, east of Scott Street, was a bedroom community for Cincinnati and Covington businessmen and political leaders of the times. These citizens, through the Council, were concerned with the smoke generated by the furnaces and especially by the fire hazard the works represented. This concern became more acute following the 1872 warehouse fire.

In addition to the conflict with the Covington City Council, the Hemingrays lost a major lawsuit to the City concerning their right to dock and off-load coal and other raw materials from barges tied up adjacent to their property. City officials contended that the waterfront was a common area and that they had a right to impose a wharfage tax on any commercial user. On the other hand, the Hemingray' s deed(4) stated that their property extended to low-water line of the Ohio River. Nevertheless, the Court found in favor of the City because the original town plat shows an intervening street at the water's edge.

Records of the above referenced City Council and Court actions were researched by Mr. John Webster, Erlanger, Kentucky, during the 1970's. John and I talked extensively about his findings on a number of occasions; unfortunately, the records had disappeared when I attempted to review them for myself in the early 1980's. City officials contended that the records had been transferred to the Kentucky Archives at Frankfort. Archives officials claimed that the records were never received. Furthermore, there was a strong rumor among individuals researching Northern Kentucky historical records that the documents had been removed to a private collection (reminiscent of the Hemingray file once held by the Alexander M. Bracken Library, Ball State University, Muncie, IN). Attempts by myself and others to locate these records were unsuccessful at that time. I do not know if the records have been recovered since I moved from the Cincinnati area in 1987. 

Looking at the situation from the Muncie perspective yields the following rational. The Muncie Daily News states that the fire occurred two weeks prior to the annual summer shutdown. For those not familiar with method of operation, glass works would shut down for two months during each summer (July and August) to refurbish the furnaces and ovens, repair other damage, and give the workers a break from the combined heat of the furnaces and summer. Robert C. Hemingray stated to the newspaper that they would use this time to reconstruct the plant and be ready to produce glass in September.(5) It is easy to surmise that the Covington furnaces were not refurbished when glass production was shut down for the last time. It can also be easily speculated that it would take nearly as long to reline the furnaces and pots and generally return the Covington works to service as it would take to reconstruct the facilities at Muncie. Furthermore, all the glass workers had been relocated to Muncie by this time. Temporary relocation of the workforce would have presented expensive logistics problems to both the Company and the men. The paper stated at a later date: "Mr. Hemingray has notified his patrons that the factory will be rebuilt and in full blast within sixty days."(6) A week later, The Daily News stated: "Tomorrow evening the fires in the glass works, both window, flint, and green houses, go out to give the blowers their regular summer vacation. The furnaces will be idle for two months, at the end of which time a marked difference will be noticed in the glass trade of this city. As it now is we have but the factories of Ball Brothers, Maring, Hart& Co., the Muncie Glass Co., in operation. The works of the Over Window Glass Company is in ashes, as is also the flint house of the Hemingray boys. When the fires are lighted in September the works of the two last named will again be in operation with an increased capacity.......(7) The 30 June edition included: "Since the fire, the Hemingray factory has turned out two car loads of glass insulators and are still at work on pressed ware... "(8) It must be assumed that these two car loads either fulfilled their obligation to Western Union, the contract term extended into the next work year, or that they had been relieved from the remainder of their contract obligation. 

Later the paper would report: "Not only is the Hemingray glass company rebuilding their burned factory, but in addition a new building is being erected to be occupied by a part of the company's plant now operated in Covington, Kentucky. The tin works manufactures tops for candy jars and other glassware, as well as a side lamp of tin. The prosperity of the firm, notwithstanding the disastrous fire, has induced them to remove the Covington machinery to Muncie and it will add several hands to the large number already employed here."(9) There is no record in the Muncie newspapers to suggest the plant was not ready for the fall start-up in September. The Cincinnati and Covington newspapers are silent on the fire and any possible reopening of the Covington Works. One would think that if any serious consideration were given to reopening the Covington Works, notice would have been given in the Kentucky Post.

Bob bases his conclusion that the Covington Works were reopened on the fact that the archeological investigation (10) recovered insulators with the "1893" patent date embossing. The question of how the obviously "made in Muncie" insulators came to be found at the Covington Works site and along the riverfront requires a response. One must be aware that Daniel Hemingray maintained his office as Company Treasurer at Covington until his death in 1911. His presence provided the continuing contacts with Cincinnati financial and business leaders necessary to move the Company forward following relocation and subsequent reconstruction after the fire. It is my opinion that the company used the Covington warehouse facilities to store insulators destined for Cincinnati Bell and other southern customers. Three major railroads crossed the river at Cincinnati making this a logical place to store products without having to finance construction of additional facilities at Muncie. The Company's presence in Covington was completely eliminated very soon after Daniel's death.(11)

Considering each and all of the above, it is my opinion that the Hemingrays left Covington and never looked back.

References: 
(1) The Daily Herald, Muncie, IN, 18 June 1892.
(2) The Daily Herald, Muncie, IN, 20 June 1892.
(3) The Muncie Daily News, Muncie, IN, 6 January 1888; also The Muncie Daily Times, Muncie, IN, 13 January, 1888.
(4) Warrantee Deed, Henry Pace, Jr. to Ralph Gray and Robert Hemingray, 20 August 1852, Deed Book 19, Page 452, Kenton County Courthouse, Independence, Kentucky.
(5) The Muncie Daily News, Muncie, IN, I 8 June 1892
(6) The Muncie Daily Times, Muncie, IN, 20 June 1892.
(7) The Muncie Daily News, Muncie, IN, 29 June 1892.
(8) The Muncie Daily Times, Muncie, IN, 30 June 1892.
(9) The Muncie Daily Times, Muncie, IN, 27 July 1892.
(10) Genheimer, Robert A., ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING, EVALUATION, AND FINAL MITIGATION EXCAVATIONS AT COVINGTON'S RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PHASE II SITE, KENTON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, October 1987.
(11) The Kentucky Post, Cincinnati, OH 14 December 1911; also The Morning Star, Muncie, IN, 15 December 1911. 

Sincerely,
Glenn Drummond,
Notasulaga, AL

A RESPONSE FROM BOB

Dear Carol,

I received Glenn Drummond's letter and must say that I really enjoy constructive criticism. Glenn has written a well-researched letter with several valid points that made me take a hard look at my conclusions. 

First of all, I want to thank Glenn for sharing with me much of his research files on Hemingray. Without his help, the article "150 Years of Hemingrays'" would never have been written in the first place. Secondly, Glenn mentioned that different researchers come to different conclusions. I want to explain how I came to mine.

Directly following the Muncie fire on Saturday, June 18, 1892, several reports stated that Hemingray's factory was not totally destroyed and that they would continue making glass on the following Monday. It was stated that the 6 ovens were not destroyed and a temporary shed would be built over them. However, on Saturday night rain fell that caused a general collapse of 5 of the 6 ovens. By compiling some facts from these reports it can be determined that Hemingray was working on an order for Western Union for insulators at the time of the fire, one carload of insulators was destroyed in the fire, and 5 of the 6 ovens had collapsed after the fire. This must have severely hampered any thoughts of continued production the following Monday. In fact, Robert Hemingray was quoted as saying that after the insurance adjusters were through the factory would be rebuilt in 60 days. It is my opinion that the order for Western Union was a priority and with the Muncie factory almost completely destroyed, the Covington factory may have been utilized for some production. 

Glenn is right when he says that the newspaper article from July 27, 1892 stated that Hemingray was going to move more equipment from Covington to Muncie. However, herein lies some information; in July of 1892 a segment of the Covington plant was still being operated -- this is a full month after the fire at Muncie! This statement also coincides with a history written in The History of Delaware County, Indiana from 1924. It states that both factories were operated simultaneously for a period of two years. Although this reference states that the simultaneous operation occurred from 1888 to 1890, the above newspaper article disputes that. I have more faith in the 1892 newspaper of the time than a history written 31 years later. Could it be that the simultaneous operation occurred for more than two years from 1888 thru 1893? We may never know this but there are other clues.

Glenn references the archaeological investigation report which I acquired of the Covington site. In that report, it states in several areas that insulators bearing the May 2, 1893 patent date were unearthed at that location. The report lists Hemingray 9's, and l2's as the majority recovered along with a few others. The report also states that some of these same insulators have "fatal manufacturing flaws" or were "aborted insulators". I have actually seen a few of these including a CD 151 H.G. CO. with the patent date and drip points. This particular specimen was crackled, indicating to me an insulator that was improperly annealed. I plan on viewing more of these shards to be able to determine if all of the 1893 dated insulators are flawed. 

Also, most of the Hemingray 12's and 9's that I have seen from the archeological dig are "prism embossed". This particular type of embossing dates to some of the earliest of the 1893 dated insulators. Prism embossed units can be positively dated back to 1895 by use of a trade journal article showing a drawing of a Hemingray CD 178 Santa Ana style. All specimens of this particular insulator that I have seen all have prism embossing.

I did think for a while, as Glenn does, that Hemingray made insulators in Muncie and shipped them down to Covington. However, insulators that have manufacturing flaws of such prominence that archaeologists would notice, don't appear to be insulators worthy of shipping there. It would have been very costly for Hemingray to ship insulators from Muncie to Covington by rail, then off load them onto carts to take to the Covington plant, only to have many of them unusable. 

Of course the March 1894 Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows the Covington plant as "Not in Operation". So if 1893 dated insulators were made at Covington, they would have to be made between May 2, 1893 and March 1894 -- or, maybe not. 

If Glenn is correct, and Covington was not utilized in 1892 and 1893, I have another explanation for the 1893 dated insulators present at the Covington site. I will give you the following two references courtesy of the late Dick Roller.

Mar. 8, 1900
China, Glass, & Lamps 
Work has begun placing the old Hemingray glass plant at the foot of Madison Ave., Covington, KY, in shape to resume the mfr. of glassware. The company is said to be starting up its Covington plant as an experiment, and if it can be shown that its goods can be made as cheap at Covington as at Muncie, IN, where its main plant is now operated, the entire works will be moved to Covington.

Nov. 22, 1901
China, Glass, & Lamps
Removal of the Hemingray Glass Co. 's factory to Cincinnati from the IN gas belt has not as yet been fully decided upon. There has been some trouble on the part of the company getting the place they wanted, and now it has determined to build a special furnace and experiment with the IN and IL coal. If the experiments are productive of the results anticipated by some, the factory will put in a series of the furnaces or equip its plant with the furnaces that will be needed for the coal to be procured and will remain where it is.

The Hemingrays may have been considering moving back to Covington or the Cincinnati area because of the exhaustion of the free natural gas. Experimentation with the Covington factory between 1900 and 1901 could also explain the presence of insulators with "fatal manufacturing flaws" bearing the May 2, 1893 patent date.

In my opinion, some Hemingray insulators bearing the May 2, 1893 patent date were indeed made at Covington, KY as well as Muncie, IN. Whether the Covington site was utilized in the 1892-1893 time frame or in the 1900-1901 time frame is what I believe to be the great mystery.

Bob Stahr,
St. John, IN

HEMINGRAY DIGGINGS

Perhaps this one should be in "Mac's Believe It Or Not!" Darin Cochran; Bob Stahr and I certainly have had several surprises while digging at the Hemingray factory dump, but lately I've found stuff that wouldn't fit in at Hemingray at all, it seems to me. The first was a CD 154 Lynchburg insulator, which might be a railroad throw-off since Lynchburgs were on the main line behind Hemingray, and it was found on the property in back by the railroad property. 

The second things found a couple months ago was a CD 134 Brookfield. Again, maybe a railroad throw-off, but this was inside the fence bordering the actual factor grounds.

The third and fourth items really threw me though. In an area that dates back to the earliest Hemingray/Muncie production, the 1880's and 1890's, in clay soil that holds shards of items they made in that time including lamps, bottles, insulators and fruit jars, two CD 104 New Eng. Tel & Tel Co's! How on earth is that possible? New Eng. Tel's don't really exist in this part of the country on poles. One theory could be that Hemingray had them to examine so they could make their own. Or, they did make their own. Like with the CD 147 1907 insulators, perhaps Hemingray made some and other companies, like Brookfield, made others. These CD 104's are now being examined by us to try and verify that they did or didn't make them by looking at mold features and lettering styles, comparing them to other Hemingray insulators of the time. 

We're in our fourth year of digging the "Hemidump" and I hope many unsolved mysteries can be solved, giving all us collectors a better understanding of Hemingray and their products.

Roger Lucas, 
Columbus, IN